December 07, 2003
Bush repeals steel tariffs -- finally!
Bush has finally repealed the steel tariffs he had imposed on imported steel twenty-one months ago.
These tariffs were a mistake from the very start. Protecting a dying, inefficient industry had a cost that was too high — for consumers of steel here in the US, and for myriad other export based industries which would have been hit by retaliatory tariffs. What’s more, the tariffs were largely ineffective.
For the umpteenth time, we’ve learnt that protectionism doesn’t work.
Posted by Vivek at December 7, 2003 12:55 PMIt is indeed about time it happened. It caused many more problems than it solved.
Posted by: Adam at December 7, 2003 04:33 PMProtectionism doesn’t work? Tell that to the people in Taiwan and Korea! They were able to flood the market with cheap steel, because their government subsidizes it.
Bush was throwing a bone to the very people who his unrestrained trade policies had thrown out of work. He knew the WTO was going to vote it down. He was just doing it to look good.
The problem with the steel industry was lazy, incompetent management. But nobody in the executive office wants to admit that. So they’ll blame it on the worker. Our workers are some of the most productive on the planet. But unfortunately, they get wages and benefits that take money from the coffers that executives believe they deserve. And of course, because executives think what they’re doing is important, and they’re the ones with the power, they screw over the employee, and benefit themselves. Today’s executives seem rather content to bid up their salaries the way sport stars and movie stars do.
Executive compensation has far outpaced worker compensation. Why is it in the budget to pay millions to executives, to take the losses on so many stock options, but not to pay the people who make the business possible?
How long must this charade go on? The Government does have protectionist policies: you just have to be in charge to enjoy their protection.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at December 8, 2003 08:48 AMStephen brings up a good point and an important issue light of the current economic situation. With a company as big as Enron going under and Kenneth Lay, the CEO, receiving a million dollar tax rebate, it does indeed go to show that the current government goes out of its way to protect owners and management.
One of the things I find rather amusing are these two posters which illustrate the affair quite nicely.
http://homepage.mac.com/leperous/.Pictures/cookbooks.jpg
http://homepage.mac.com/leperous/.Pictures/bonds.jpg
Then, go further to figure in inflation and where does that leave the common worker?
It really does need to stop and if things continue the way they are now, we might see a reversion to the early 1900s economic situation.
The problem seems to be that nothing gets regulated for or against in this climate unless it is in the interest of a big corporation’s bottom line. The interest of the public at large seems to get short shrift in the priorities of the government that is supposed to represent them.
I mean, it’s not all right to regulate SUVs on gas mileage, but is alright to ensure more people buy them by giving people a large tax break for doing so. This of course means that indirectly, the government is ensuring that we will consume gas faster, and spend more money on it.
It’s not alright to introduce legislation that indicates the actual expense of stock options, but it is alright to legislate so that these people who take money from businesses that way keep more of their gains.
It’s not alright to to unionize to ensure good pay and benefits, but it is alright to allow companies to pay wages so low, the employees have to take advantage of federal aid in order to get by.
It’s not alright to raise taxes, but it’s quite alright to ensure that our children will face the debts generated by the deficits, and to allow such debt to raise interest rates.
So far, the trade policies show the same pattern: it doesn’t matter how much the average person will lose, or how much of an trade deficit we’ll build up, it just matters that few people, who already have a great deal of power in our lives will have more wealth concentrated in their privileged hands.
Why is it that when our government intervenes (That is, governs), that it consistently comes down on the side of those people who least need help? If the rich want to get richer, why don’t they just work harder like the rest of us, instead of vampirizing our livelihoods, and our standard of living?
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at December 9, 2003 09:09 PM
